eia-do we know where we are going? - CiteSeerX

10 downloads 0 Views 183KB Size Report
The recent review of EIA effectiveness (Sadler 1996) illustrates how the field has evolved. It also identifies important new directions and areas requiring.
3

David P. Lawrence

EIA-DO WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING? David P. Lawrence'

INTRODUCTION Many objectives have been advanced for EIA over the past 25 years. Many claims have also been made regarding what EIA does or should accomplish. What is less clearly evident is whether the identified objectives are appropriate, whether and to what extent they are being accomplished, which objectives should take priority, and why and whether some EIA objectives are better accomplished by or in conjunction with other environmental management instruments. The recent review of EIA effectiveness (Sadler 1996) illustrates how the field has evolved. It also identifies important new directions and areas requiring enhancement. To the extent that EIA is broadened to address these new priorities, additional EIA objectives are likely to be identified. If all EIA objectives are equally necessary and equally important, it is likely that the reach of EIA will greatly its grasp. This is not necessarily a bad thing if the shortfall between aspirations and accomplishments is the product of deliberate choices. However, if the shortfall is more the unintended outcome of a myriad of uncoordinated, albeit well-intentioned, individual decisions, EIA will likely be much less efficient and effective than is desirable.

' David P. Lawrence is president of Lawrence Environmental, PO Station A, Box 3475, Langley, British Columbia V3A 4R8, Canada; tel: +604-532-9889; fax: t604-534-9889; email: < [email protected] > .

4

EIA - do we know where we are going?

In an effort to address this conundrum of how to best apply the limited resources devoted to EIA, a range of objectives ascribed to EIA are first highlighted. The conventional, although often implicit, way of structuring EIA objectives is then described. A suggested reordering of EIA objectives, into five levels, is next suggested. This reordering of EIA objectives is a potentially useful mechanism for establishing priorities for EIA theorybuilding and practice. Reordering EIA objectives can also assist in goal setting for EIA regulatory requirements, in the formulation of objectives and criteria for individual EIAs and in the evaluation of alternatives and of proposed actions.

THE CONVENTIONAL ORDERING OF EIA OBJECTIVES A great many objectives have been advanced for EIA as highlighted in table 1, These objectives are both direct (can be realized by EIA alone) and indirect (are addressed by EIA in conjunction with other environmental management instruments). EIA objectives also pertain to how public agencies and private organizations undertake planning and reach decisions, how organizational environments function and are structured and the conscquetlces of EIA for the human, built, and natural environments and for society.

These objectives, both individually and collectively, are laudable. However, with no explicit ranking of objectives, an implicit ranking will inevitably emerge. The implicit ranking that appears to exist within EIA practice, as illustrated in figure I , places selective direct planning/decision making and organizational objectives at the forefront, most notably the early incorporation of better environmental information into project planning processes and the more explicit treatment of environmental concerns in documents (EIAs) placed before decision makers. The remaining direct and indirect planning and organizational ob.iectives and, i n turn, the direct and indirect environmental and societal Objectives are all then expected to be advanced. I f better information is provided, i t is assumed it will be considered. A s a result, organizational values, attitudes, and behavior will then change, environmentally appropriate decisions will be made, environmentally sound projects will result, and society and the environment will benefit. The regulatory trappings associated with EIA (e.g., regulations and guidelines that require document disclosure and agency and public consultation) are assumed to contribute to the indirect planning and organizational objectives, leading, in turn. to further environmental and societal benefits.

5

David P. Lawrence

Figure 7 . Conventional ordering of EIA objectives

Direct Planning/Decision-Making

d c -



Indirect Planning/

Direct Organizationall

Decision-Making Objectives

Administrative Objectives

Indirect Organizationall Administrative Objectives

Direct Environmental Objectives

c

Indirect Environmental Objectives

f”--t

+

c

Indirect Societal Objectives

+

Direct Societal Objectives

n

Environmental Sustainability Objectives

6

EIA -do we know where we are .qoing? ~~~

~

Table 7 . EIA objectives

DIRECT

INDIRECT

................................

PLANNlNGiDEClSION RIAKING Less p;misan (ohjectivity) (Jain. Urhan & Stacey 1977) M o r e environmentally informed decision makers and decision nlaking (Wood 199s: Bass & Herson 1993: C : ~ l t l ~1989: ll Erickson 10041 M o r e open and ;lcCOUllt;lhk (public in\ol\wncnt) (I.sng Kr Arnlour 1081: Wood 1995: Wicsner 1995; S;~dler 1996; Estrin (i( Swaigen 1993) M o r e rational (Grima et al. 1986: Estrin & Swaigen 1993) Rctluced project costs in long tern1 (Sadar 1996) Inlproved environmental data base and environnlental analysis methods (Sadar 1996: Wood 1995) Vehicle f o r involvement hy scientific ;mi professional communities (Twiss 1994)

ORGANIZATIONS

- ADMINISTRATION Vehicle f o r intra- and inter-agency coordination ( T w i t s 1974: W o o d 1995) Vehicle for puhliciprivate cooperation ccotrrtIi~~;trion) Vehicle for greater scientific and professional involvement (Beanlands & Duinker 1983) M o r e open organizations (Diamond & Noonan 1996) Less partisan-political organizations Enhanced public confidence i n public or private institution5 (Satl;w 1996) M o r e rational organizations

David P. Lawrence

7

DIRECT ---------""""""""""""""""""~"~""""""~

INDIRECT

ENVIRONMENT 0

0

0

Prevent environmentally unsound undertakings (Wood 1995; Burchell & Listokin 1975; Meredith 1991) Choose environmentally sound undertakings (Marshall et al. 1985) Ensure more environmentally and socially sound undertakings (through inclusion of means to eliminate or reduce adverse effects) (Brown 1990; Wood 1995; Sadar 1996; Sadler 1996)

Protect and preserve environment (Caldwell 1989; Bass & Herson 1993; Sadler 1996; Jain, Urban & Stacey 1977) Prevent environmental degradation (Therivel et ai. 1992; Wood 1995) Enhance environment (Meredith 1991; Westman 1985) Harmonize human and built environments (Meredith 1991; Jain, Urban & Stacey 1977; Westman.1985) Harmonize lluman environment (Wiesner 1995) Harmonize human and natural environments (Bass & Herson 1993; Wiesner 1995) Sustainable environment (natural, economic, social) (WCED 1987; UN 1992; Sadler 1996; Smith 1993; Wiesner 1995; Sadar 1996; Estrin & Swaigen 1993)

SOCIETY Mitigate negative impacts of an industrial society (Bartlett 1990) 0

0

(Adapted from Lawrence 1994)

Enhance environmental understanding (Jain, Urban & Stacey 1977) Further environmental ethic (values) (Sadler 1996) Facilitate environmentally conscious behavior Consider future generational implications (Meredith 1991) Vehicle for community empowerment and local capacity building (Sadler 1996)

8

EIA - do we know where we are going?

The cause-effect sequence described above can and does occur to some extent. However, the path from better environmental information and EIA regulatory requirements to a better environment and society is a long and tortuous one, strewn with many obstacles. Three questions can be asked: Arc there more direct routes for EIA to take'? Can EIA reach the intended destination nlorc quickly if linkcd to other instruments'? Can, i n sonle cases, the destination be reached more directly by other instruments? The answers to these questions may well be Fes i n all three cases.

A SUGGESTED REORDERING OF EIA OBJECTIVES The identification of more direct routes to environmental and societal benefits begins by ordering the EIA objectives into five levels, ranked from most to least important, as described below and as illustrated i n figure 2 . Level 1 - Asustainable environment The realization of a sustainable environment is the most highly ranked objective. Interdependencies among environmental components (e.g., economic and social dependency on natural capital) is a crucial consideration. Integration of EIA with other environmental management instruments is necessary for the achievenmlt of this objective. Sustainability is necessary and sufficient but it will require substantial attitudinal and behavioral changes and significant planning and organizational changes. It will also require systems of sustainability indicators to demonstrate if and to what degree we are moving toward or away from sustainability objectives. Moving further toward sustainability will likely contribute to the realization of many other EIA objectives. Level 2- Other indirect EIA environmental and societal objectives I n addressing EIA proposals, and no re particularly alternatives to EIA proposals, it is essential to keep asking such questions as: To what extent does i t preserve and enhance the natural environment? 111 what ways does

it lead to greater harmnization among environmental components? Is it consistent with environmental ethical principles? What contribution does it make to the interests of future generations? Does it enhance our environmental understanding and does it lead to more environmentally conscious behavior'? These should be direct rather than indirect EIA objectives. Thus, i f the contribution of EIA is limited, uncertain, or very indirect (as determined through sustainability and environmental indicators), the questio11-

9

David P. Lawrence

Are there better ways to achieve these objectives?-can also be asked. The realization of these objectives is necessary but not sufficient. It is only through the application of sustainability-based thresholds that the truly difficult decisions can be made regarding the acceptability of current and the instigation of new human activities and environmental interventions.

Figure 2. Suggested reordering of EIA objectives

Environmental Sustainability Objectives

c -

Indirect Societal Objectives

Indirect Environmental

c -

Direct Societal Objectives

c

Direct Organizational/AdministrativeObjectives (values/behaviour)

Direct Environmental Objectives

c

Direct Planning/Decision-Making Objectives (values/behaviour)

c -

Indirect Planning/ Decision-Making Objectives

Indirect OrganizationaV Administrative Objectives

IO

EIA - do we know where we are going?

Level 3 - Direct environmental and societal EIA objectives There is tendency for the substance of EIA to be lost in the welter of paper and process. I t is a sad commentary on EIA practice that it is often difficult to establish if and t o what degree the projects that emerge from the EIA process are more environmentally sound t h a n they would have been had EIA requirements not been in place. There should be tangible evidcncc, using hindsight evaluation, that EIA procedures are making a difference i n the sense that environmentally unsound undertakings are not proceeding, that undertakings which do proceed are more environmentally sound than they otherwise would have been, and that significant environmentally enhancements are being integrated into existing environmental undertakings.

These types of advances can be realized to a far greater degree if need and non-structural alternatives receive m r e serious attention than the more colnmon cursory treatment. Limiting EIA to the environmental “polishing” of pre-determined capital projects raises questions regarding the opportunity costs associated with the significant current and continuing investment i n the EIA apparatus. The realization of these objectives is necessary because many projects will proceed in any event. However, it is far from sufficient. Level 4- Direct planning and organizational objectives

Notwithstanding the above, broadening planning processes, tlecision-making bases, and organizational attitudes and behavior to encompass environmental and social concerns remains a necessary antl worthwhile endeavor prirnarily because planning and decision-making processes and institutional arrangements can be significant impediments to the realization of higher order environmental and societal objectives. Removing these impediments involves much more than the provision of better environmental information. Although better environmental data and documentation are desirable, the focus instead should be on whether and to what degree the information provided makes a tangible difference at the decision-making level antl in organizational behavior. Brave pronouncements of environmental values may give the appearance of change but the true test (a test that requires hindsight evaluation of the environmental effectiveness of planning processes and institutional arrangements) is whether final decisions and organizational behavior demonstrate the instillment of environmental values and ethics. The planning and organizational objectives that bear directly on tangible behavioral changes are necessary. The remaining direct planning and organizational objectives, although often desirable, cannot be considered

11

David P. Lawrence

necessary. None of these objectives are sufficient. They must be integrated within and directed by higher order objectives. Level 5 -Indirect planning and organizational objectives The EIA planning process can contribute to making planning, decision making, and organizations more open, informed, less partisan, and more rational. It can also facilitate communications and coordination and contribute to the greater involvement of the professional and scientific community. Such roles are certainly a common theme when EIA is being promoted as a planning and decision-making tool. Fair enough. Arguably, however, such “benefits” are sometimes more a byproduct of EIA than objectives that require significant resources and attention. Certainly EIA requirements and procedures should be designed to facilitate public and scientific involvement and to contribute to decision-making accountability. The objectives pertaining to more rational and objective planning and organizations are more questionable or, at best, are of mixed value. There are also many other instruments available that are directed toward the same objectives. The indirect planning and organizational objectives can be considered as sometimes desirable but never sufficient. They are, moreover, only desirable to the extent that they d o not detract from the realization of higher order objectives.

CONCLUSIONS The ordering of EIA objectives, as described above, can lead to significant emphasis shifts in the EIA planning process. Sustainability and environmental harmonization could come to the fore. Greater attention could be devoted to discerning tangible evidence of environmental improvement and to changes in decision-making outcomes and organizational behavior. Less emphasis would be placed on rational planning, on consensus building, on environmental data collection, and on espoused environmental planning and decision making as ends in themselves. Realistically, not all the objectives at each level can be achieved or, in some cases, even addressed. Clearly, the higher levels (Levels 1-3) should receive the primary emphasis. Level 4 and 5 objectives should only be addressed to the extent that they directly contribute to the realization of Level 1 to 3 objectives. The measurement and evaluation of EIA effectiveness is necessary at all levels. The integration of EIA within broader environmental

12

EIA - do w e know where w e are going?

management frameworks and systems is essential. Difficult tradeoffs will need to be addressed. Is EIA, for example, likely to be more effective in contributing to higher order objectives by focusing on project-level evaluation and leaving strategic evaluation to other forms of environmental management? Or should EIA be broadened to cnconlpass policies, programs, and plans because it is the tnost appropriate instrument for addressing higher order objectives’? I f the latter is the case, appropriate adaptations must be made; EIA nlust complement other instnlments, and EIA must be integrated within a larger whole.

REFERENCES

David P. Lawrence

13

Jain, R.K., L.V. Urban, and G. S . Stacey. 1977. Environmental Itnpact Analysis. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Lang, R. and A. Armour. 1981. The Assesstnent and Review of Social Impacts. Technical Report # 1, Hull, Quebec: Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. Lawrence. D.P. 1994. “The characteristics and aims of environmental impact assessment.” Plan Canada March: 6-10. Marshall, D.W., B. Sadler, J. Sector, and J. Wiebe. 1985. Environtnental Managewent and Itnpacr A.ssesstnenr: Sotne Lessons and Guidance j o r Canadian and lnternutional Experience. Prepared for Workshop on Environnlental Impact Assessment Procedures in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand. Hull, Quebec: Federal Environmental AssessmentReview Office. Meredith, T. 1991. “Environmental impact assessment and monitoring.” In Resource Managetnent undDeveloptnent, edited by B. Mitchell, 224-245. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Sadar, M.H. 1996. Environrnenfal Itnpact Assesstnent(2nd edition). Ottawa: Carleton University Press Inc. Sadler, 0. 1996. Environtnental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and International Association for Impact Assessment. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services. Smith, L.G. 1993. ItnpactAssesstnentantlSl~stainubleResourceManagetnent. Essex, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical. Therivel, R., E. Wilson, S . Thompson, D. Healey, and D. Prichard. 1992. Strategic Environtnentul Assessrnent. London: Earthscape Publications Ltd. Twiss, R.H. 1974. “Linking the EIS to the planning process.” In Environtnental Itnpact Assesstnenr: Guidelines and Cotntnentary, edited by T.G. Dickert, K.R. Domeny, 5-16. Berkeley: University of California. (UN) United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21: Progranl for Action for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations. (WCED) World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Cotnn~on Future. New York: Oxford University Press. Westman, W.E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assesstnent and Environtnental Pbnning. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Wiesner, D. 1995. E.I.A. The Environtnentul Itnpact Assessment Process-What It Is and How To D o One. Dorset, UK: Prism Press. Wood, C . 1995. Environmental Itnpuct Assessment-A Cotnpurative Review. Essex, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical.